A long time ago, I viewed a movie that was set in some South American country which was being ruled by a violent tyrant.
The oppression he caused to the down-trodden population became the springboard for the rise of a rebel group, which was led by someone who was perceived as a benevolent leader, able to right all the previous wrongs and create a stable and peaceful nation.
After a long struggle, the rebels, aided chiefly by the grassroots of the country, won out, overthrew the despot, and installed a government headed by their liberator.
At first this leader ruled justly, but as mistakes were made and people needed changes, he took on some of the traits of his predecessor, and entrenched himself in power by curtailing many of the people's basic human rights.
In the end, the conditions in the country became even worse than before.
After this movie, I have observed many countries of the world generally following this pattern. In a number of states in which tyrants were overthrown by someone promising to rule for the people's good, that leader has reverted to the terrible ways of his predecessor.
The present impasse that has resulted from the withdrawal by the government of advertisements that were usually sent to one of our major national dailies has served to give me a stark reminder of this movie, and the parallel that we can draw from it to apply to our own Guyanese situation.
Before its accession to government in 1992, the People's Progressive Party championed the cause of freedom of speech as one of the more prominent elements in its struggle for justice and human rights for our people.
Now, we see what can only be interpreted as a rejection of this policy and the start of one of reversion to the dark days in which we experienced the most drastic suppression of our freedom of expression (among many other basic rights) at all levels of our society.
Before we take this matter lightly, and because I would like to enlighten the young people and sound a warning on what such a policy may lead to, even at the personal level, I would like to recount some of my personal experiences during that gloomy period in the history of our nation.
During the campaign leading to the general elections of 1973, at Aishalton, South Rupununi , where I was the then headmaster, I had the temerity to ask the minister of the government who held a meeting in the school some questions which may have been embarrassing to the administration.
He refused to respond, and within a few days I received a message to report to the Chief Education Officer in Georgetown immediately.
Much to the credit of this professional, he dismissed the matter and nothing was heard about it until a year after, when I was transferred, without reason given, to another remote location at Mabaruma, Region One.
Then came the 1978 referendum, when I refused to cooperate with party officials in hosting political meetings at the school and participating in party meetings.
I was then summarily transferred to a school in an area considered pro-government, but was lucky to get my application for promotion endorsed by the Teaching Service Commission, and I was appointed head of a school of a higher level.
If I thought that things would have been different, I soon found that my experiences at this school followed the usual pattern. In no time I got into trouble with the party bigwigs in the area.
This came to a head when I objected to the abuse of the school furniture when the party held film shows at the school to raise funds for the political campaign towards the 1980 elections. Growing weary of this continuous attempt to control and censor, I resigned ten years before my stipulated time, after 28 years' service and without any benefits.
But this did not end there. I was subsequently appointed a Supervisor for training of election officials in 2000, and worked for a whole month before I was informed by the Chief Elections Officer that the political party members on the Elections Commission had objected to my appointment. I was never paid for this work, for which I was commended both by the trainees and my immediate supervisor.
This latter move by the government has all the makings of the resurgence of party paramountcy, the disastrous policy under which we suffered and which cruelly divided this nation and set us so far back that all the good works by subsequent governments have not been able to achieve any real progress.
This government has been given a bigger mandate by the Guyanese people at the last elections to govern, and this may prove that they are on the right track.
But this does not give them the licence to trample on out basic rights and treat this nation as their personal property.